rhutchin

So, Johnny says, "I suggest that we discuss specific evidence. Let's start with the book of Genesis..." but then refuses to start a new thread on the issue. OK.

Johnny Skeptic

On the contrary, you have not provided sufficient evidence that skeptics are at risk for rejecting the Bible, and that the risks from all other possible Gods are not greater than the risks from the God of the Bible.

No matter how many years you wish to debate, it all gets back to specific evidence. If you have specific evidence why skeptics should trust the Bible, skeptics who are participating in this thread will consider it.

Deus Ex

If Christian evidence was as stong as your counter-analogy of astronauts finding moon cheese, then I would reconsider my beliefs. However, you present no evidence except for old stories in books and a lot of talk about a deity that hides from humanity.

Produce your moon cheese and I will listen.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: In the NASB, 1st Peter 3:15 says "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." I request that you provide specific evidence regarding why you became a Christian.

The title of this thread is "Inauthentic sayings of Jesus." How do you propose that historians try to establish what Jesus said, and what Jesus did not say?

There are not any originals of what Jesus said. Do you know how old the oldest copy is of anything that Jesus said?

Mageth

You misunderstand what I said...perhaps I didn't phrase it the best, but I think my meaning should be clear in the context. I said “In this more complete answer, which is formulated according to your notions, your actions don't appear to make one damn bit of a difference as to whether one obtains "eternal life," as one could not do what the lawyer answered [u]and still obtain eternal life[u]. Throwing in the ‘just ask for mercy’ makes it so. Hence the contradiction in your position.”

I did not rule out that one could do what the lawyer said; instead, I said that one could do something else entirely and still obtain eternal life just by asking for mercy, according to your notions.

I see it as absurd to hold the position that “actions make a difference” and “your actions gain you eternal life or exclude you from eternal life” while simultaneously holding the position that “however, your actions don’t matter if you just say you’re sorry.”

And we’re way off track from the thread. That’s all I’ve got to say on this.

spamandham

In your opinion, *could* you realistically choose to believe that the Flying spaghetti monster is real, or is it simply that you "won't" choose to believe it? Do you agree that these are not mutually exclusive - it is possible that you *won't* choose it, but that also you *couldn't*, because you know the idea is absurd?

Of course I've heard of these things or I wouldn't be participating in BC&H. But merely having heard of something doesn't make it plausible. I've heard of all kinds of religious nonsense, including YHWH. I would say that hearing about something is a necessary prerequisite to belief, but certainly it is not sufficient.

We don't choose our beliefs. Our beliefs are formed by our experiences and are beyond our direct control. That said, I *could* choose to claim to believe and to act as if I believed, and I *could* choose to alter my future experiences so that they will tend to favor belief at some point in the future. But neither of these are the same as willy nilly flipping a switch in the brain from "disbelief" to "belief".

rhutchin

If the FSM makes himself known to people by taking the form of a man (or some other means) and doing miracles that no one else can do, then I think it is realistic to believe that there is a basis to believe in the FSM. I don't see a basis for believing in the FSM.

I agree.

I think you, and everyone else, has a brain that allows you to sift through everything you experience and choose what you will believe.

rhutchin

Yeah. So, in my example, let's say that it is 2,000 years since the astronauts reported what they had seen and no one has been back to the moon since and no one is going any time soon. So, no one can produce the moon cheese and you will not listen. That's fine but your non-belief does not establish the truth (or lack of truth) of the issue. The existing evidence is all there is.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin:

If you don't mind getting back on topic, the title of this thread is "Inauthentic sayings of Jesus." How do you propose that historians try to establish what Jesus said, and what Jesus did not say?

There are not any originals of what Jesus said. How old is the oldest copy of anything that Jesus said?

Please let me know what you think of spin's post #15. I think that it is very good. Since it partly deals with inerrancy, and you are an inerrantist, I thought that you might be interested in it.

Johnny Skeptic

It would be nice if Roger Pearse stated where he believes the Gospel writers got their information from.

Some lies are reasonably possible, but a good deal of innocent but inaccurate revelations decades after the supposed facts should not be ruled out.